Talk:Gibson
I think the article should be unlocked since it needs to be updated and that's hard to do when it is locked...ApeGod 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC) It's not locked, it's semiprotected. Sorry about the inconvenience --EsIeX3 02:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Thats quite alright. Thanks for the info. ApeGod 10:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Ugh... locked... :( All because of that retarded spammer last night... ARGH! *angry face* -- FroggyGuy 18:49, 28 January 2009 (GMT) really good -- 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) __TOC__ Lock needed again? Do you guys wanna get this locked again? Comment to this talk page. --Juze 05:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Hm, I saw that this page has been vandalized many times from the history. 1 week lock, okays? --Juze 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, this needs another lock. Someone just vandalized it attempting to publicize the return of some troll from around this time last year. -- LT_AMBR0SE I'll lock it for you if you need it locked. Next time vandalism happens if you are to report it the problem will be solved faster, just a little tip. c: Plus it helps the sysop to know what is wrong.. obviously. Anyway, I'm going to lock it for registered users only. Please tell me if that is a problem, or if you would like anything else done. --Xlauraluxuriousx 01:48, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Standards The number of "regulars" has gotten out of hand. We should decide a standard for denoting regular status. Some of those users have all but stopped coming. Perhaps they should be organized by "past" and "current" regulars. I think the section would also improve by removing subtitles and only including them for users with mentionable status. That doesn't mean that their important, but that they have a significant history. While we need to decide on those things, in the mean time we need to remove the vanity username dropping currently going on.TheBSG 21:55, December 21, 2009 (UTC) I totally agree. We definately need a standard, or at least an official who can clarify who is a reg and who isn't. As far as a past and current section goes, I still think it would make the section clogged. I supose that the "Past" section would be done in a smaller way, with a smaller font size, for example; and if the subtitles were substantially reduced, it would make sense. My main problem with the subtitles is that many are, well, just plain stupid. I'd be fine if they went, but at the very least they need to be cleaned up. NightmareBC666 08:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC) Seriously, it's now at the point where, if no-one else wants to help sort these, I'm going to do it myself with my own limited knowledge of the regs. I'll start on the 28th. If anyone else wants to do it, tell me by then. NightmareBC666 10:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC) This is stupid. Why are people who cannot spell modifying entire sections? Why is there roleplaying all over the place? Why are there crossed out words and random font sizes everywhere? Who ruined this entry? TheBSG 17:41, December 7, 2010 (UTC) I edited out all of the dumb crap and changed the title of the regulars section to reflect it's true nature. I will probably start deleting entire descriptions of users that don't have any information in them next. TheBSG 13:43, December 10, 2010 (UTC) /* Don't Hack The Gibson */ Shouldn't there be a section referencing DHTG? http:/www.dhtgforum.com/ Where should it go? Overhaul Needed This place needs a serious overhaul. The vandalism needs cleaning, the Visiting Marshals section is out of date, the Regs (and other self-important users) section never really made sense and is horribly outdated...